A Landscape: OR A BRIEF PROSPECTIVE OF ENGLISH EPISCOPACY, Drawn by three skilful hands; in PARLIAMENT: Anno 1641.  
Say not then, What is the cause that the former days were better than these, for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this.  Eccles. 7.10. 
Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?  Matth. 7.16. 
Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar, among wheat, with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness departed from him.  Proverbs 27.27. 
Cursed be the Man before the Lord, that builds up the walls of this City Jericho.  Josh. 26.6. 
For if I build again the things that I have destroyed, I make myself a Transgressor.  Galat. 2.18. 
Printed in the Year MDCLX.   

To the Ingenuous, and Judicious READER.  
THou hast here put into thy hands three SPEECHES. The First bears in its from the Name of the Learned and Renowned Author The Lord Viscount FAULKELAND, whose Name is annexed, because, First he was known to be a Friend to Episcopacy, and so this very Speech shows him, and therefore His Testimony is the more Authentic: Secondly, Because he is now dead, and so out of the reach of Envy and Revenge. But the Names of the other two Gentlemen are concealed, because they are yet living.  
Two Things have moved the publishing of these at this time: First, It is supposed there are many Hundred Persons of considerable quality in the Nation, either now entering, or already entered upon the Stage for Action, who were either unborn, or at least very young, when the Episcopal Controversy was agitated among us, who are displeased with what the PARLIAMENT and Nation did against EPISCOPACY, because they only knew what they did, but not why, and who are favourers of Bishops and that party, as knowing only how much they suffered, not how much they had offended. For their sakes therefore these things are published at this time: And Secondly, For the sakes even of the BISHOPS themselves, that they may be put in remembrance of the Rocks upon which formerly they have dashed, and may carefully avoid them, lest a worse thing happen to them.   

A SPEECH made to the House of Commons, concerning Episcopacy An. D. 1641.  
By the Lord Viscount FAULKELAND; who was known to be no Presbyterian.  
Master SPEAKER,  
HE is a great Stranger in Israel, who knows not, that this Kingdom hath long laboured under many and great Oppressions, both in Religion and Liberty; and his acquaintance here is not great, or his ingenuity less, who doth not both know and acknowledge, that a great, if not a principal cause of both these hath been some Bishops, and their Adherents.  
Mr. Speaker, A little search will serve to find them to have been the destruction of Unity, under pretence of Uniformity; to have brought in Superstition, and scandal, under the Titles of Reverence, and Decency; to have defiled our Church, by adorning our Churches; to have slackened the strictness of that Union which was formerly between us, and those of our Religion beyond the Sea: An Action as unpolitick, as ungodly.  
Master Speaker, We shall find them to have Tithed Mint and Anis, and have left undone the weightier works of the Law; to have been less eager upon those who damn our Church, than upon those, who upon weak conscience, and perhaps as weak reasons (the dislike of some commanded Garment, or some uncommanded posture) only abstained from it. Nay, it hath been more dangerous for men to go to some neighbour's Parish, when they had no Sermon in their own, than to be obstinate and perpetual Recusants; while Masses have been said in security, a Conventicle hath been a crime; and which is yet more, the conforming to Ceremonies hath been more exacted than the conforming to Christianity; and whilst men for Scruples have been undone, for attempts upon Sodomy they have only been admonished.  
Master Speaker, We shall find them to have been like the Hen in Aesop, which laying every day an egg upon such a proportion of barley, her Mistress increasing her proportion in hope she would increase her eggs, she grew so fat upon that addition, that she never laid more: So though at first their Preaching were the occasion of their preferment, they after made their Preferment the occasion of their not preaching.  
Master Speaker, We shall find them to have resembled another Fable, The Dog in the manger; to have neither preached themselves, nor employ those that should, nor suffered those that would: To have brought in Catechising only to thrust out Preaching; cried down Lectures by the Name of Factions, either because their industry in that duty appeared a Reproof to their neglect of it (not unlike to that we read of him who, in Nero's time, and Tacitus his Story, was accused, because by his virtue he did appear Exprobare vitia Principis) or with intention to have brought in darkness, that they might the easier sow their tares, while it was night, and by that introduction of ignorance, introduce the better that Religion, which accounts it the Mother of Devotion.  
Master Speaker, In this they have abused his Majesty as well as his people; for when he had with great wisdom (since usually the children of darkness are wiser in their Generation than the children of light; I may guess, not without some eye upon the most politic action of the most politic Church) silenced on both parts those Opinions which have often tormented the Church, and have, and will always trouble the Schools, they made use of this Declaration to tie up one side, and let the other lose; whereas they ought either in discretion to have been equally restrained, or in justice to have been equally tolerated. And it is observable, that that party to which they gave this Licence, was that, whose Doctrine, though it were not contrary to Law, was contrary to Custom, and for a long while in this Kingdom was no oftener preached than recanted.  
The truth is, Master Speaker, That as some ill Ministers in our State first took away our money from us, and after endeavoured to make our money not worth the taking, by turning it into brass by a kind of Antiphilosophers' stone: So these men used us in the point of Preaching, first depressing it to their power, and next labouring to make it such, as the harm had not been much, if it had been depressed; the most frequent Subjects even in the most facred Auditories, being the Jus divinum of Bishops and Tithes, the sacredness of the Clergy, the Sacrilege of Impropriations, the demolishing of Puritanisme and Propriety, the building of the prerogative at Pavis, the introduction of such Doctrines, as admitting them true, the truth would not recompense the scandal, or of such as were so far false, that as Sir Thomas Moor says of the Casuists, Their business was, not to keep men from sinning, but to inform them, Quam propè ad peccatum sine peccato liceat accedere; so it seemed their work was to try how much of a Papist might be brought in without Popery, and to destroy as much as they could of the Gospel, without bringing themselves into danger of being destroyed by Law.  
Master Speaker, To go yet further, some of them have so industriously laboured to deduce themselves from Rome, that they have given great suspicion, that in gratitude they desire to return thither, or at least to meet it half way; some have evidently laboured to bring in an English, though not a Roman Popery. I mean not only the outside and dress of it, but equally absolute, a blind dependence of the people upon the Clergy, and of the Clergy upon themselves, and have opposed the Papacy beyond the Sea, that they might settle one beyond the water. Nay common fame is more than ordinarily false, if none of them have found a way to reconcile the Opinions of Rome, to the preferments of England; be so absolutely, directly, and cordially Papist, that it is all that fifteen hundred pounds a year can do to keep them from confessing it.  
Master Speaker, I come now to speak of our Liberties, and considering the great interest these men have had in our common Master, and considering how great a good to us they might have made that interest in him, if they would have used it to have informed him of our general sufferings; and considering how little of their freedom of Speech at Whitchall, might have saved us a great deal of the use we have now of it in the Parliament House, their not doing this alone were occasion enough for us to accuse them, as the betrayers, though not as the destroyers of our Rights and Liberties. Though I confess, if they had been only silent in this particular, I had been silent too: But alas, they whose Ancestors in the darkest times excommunicated the breakers of Magna Charta; did now by themselves and their Adherents both writ, preach, plot, and act against it, by encouraging Doctor Beale, by preferring Doctor Mannering, appearing forward for Monopolies, and ship money: and if any were slow and backward to comply, blasting both them and their preferment, with utmost expression of their hatred, the title of Puritans.  
Master Speaker, We shall find some of them to have laboured to exclude both all persons, and all causes of the Clergy from the ordinary jurisdiction of the temporal Magistrate, and by hindting Prohibitions (first by apparent power against the Judges, and after by secret Agreements with them) to have taken away the only legal bound to their arbitrary power, and made as it were a conquest upon the common Law of the Land, which is our common Inheritance, and after made use of that power to turn their brethren out of their Freeholds, for not doing that which no Law of man required of them to do, and which (in their opinions) the Law of God required of them not to do. We shall find them in general to have encouraged all the Clergy to Suits and to have brought all suits to the Councel-table; that having all power in Ecclesiastical matters, they laboured for equal power in temporal, and to dispose as well of every Office as of every Benefice, and lost the Clergy much Revenue and much reverence, (whereof the last is never given when it is so asked) by encouraging them indiscreetly to exact more of both than was due; so that indeed the gain of their greatness extended but to few of that Order, though the envy extended upon all.  
We shall find of them to have both kindled and blown the common fire of both Nations, to have both sent and maintained that Book, of which the Author no doubt hath long since wished with Nero U●iaam nescssim●lueras, and of which more than one Kingdom hath cause to wish, that when he writ that, he had rather burned a Library, though of the value of ●tol●mu's. We shall find them to have been the first and principal cause of hear●ach, I will not say of, but since the pacification at Barwick. We shall s●●le them to have been the almost sole abettors of my Lord of Sfrafford, whilst h● was practising upon another Kingdom, that manner of Government which he intended to settle in this, where he committed so many, so mighty, and so manifest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ies, and Oppressions, as the like have not been committed by any Governor in any Government since Verres left Sicily. And after they had called him over from being Deputy of Ireland to be in a manner deputy or England, (all things here being governed by a Junctillo, and that Junctillo governed by him) to have assisted him in the giving of such Counsels, and the pursuing of such courses, as it is a hard and measuring cast, whether they were more unwise, more unjust or more unfortunate; and which had infallibly been our destruction, if by the Grace of God their share had not been as small in the subtlety of Serpents, as in the innocency of doves.  
Master Speaker, I have represented no small quantity, and no mean degee of guilt, and truly I believe, that we shall make no little Compliment to those, and no little apology for those to whom this charge belongs, if we shall lay the faults of the men upon the Order of the Bishops, upon the Episcopacy. I wish we may distinguish between those, who have been carried away with the stream, and those who have been the stream that carried them; between those, whose proper and natural motion was toward our ruin and destruction, and those who have been hurled about to it contrary to their natural motion by the force and swinge of superior orbs; and as I wish, we may distinguish between the more and less guilty; so I yet more wish, we may distinguish between the guilty and the innocent.  
Master Speaker, I doubt, if we consider, that if not the first Planters, yet the first Spreaders of Christianity, and the first and chief Defenders of Christianity against Heresies within, and Paganism without, both with their Ink, and with their blood; and the main conducers to the resurrection of Christianity, (at least) here in the Reformation (and we own the light of the Gospel we now enjoy to the fire they then endured for it) were all Bishops: and that even now in the greatest perfection of that Order, there are yet some who have conduced in nothing to our late innovations, but in their silence; some who in an unexpected and mighty place and power have expressed an equal moderation and humility, being neither ambitious before, nor proud after, either of the Crosiers staff, or white staff: some who have been learned opposers of Popery, and zealous opposers of Arminianism, between whom and their inferior Clergy, in frequency of Preaching, hath been no distinction, whose lives are untouched, not only by guilt, but by malice; scarce to be equalled by those of any condition, or to be excelled by those in any Calendar. I doubt not I say, but if we consider this, this consideration will bring forth this Conclusion, That Bishops may be good men, and let us give but good men good Rules, we shall have both good Governors, and good times.  
Master Speaker. I am content to take away all those things from them, which to any considerable degree of probability may again beget the like mischiefs, if they be not taken away. If their temporal Titles, power and employment appear likely to distract them from the care of, or make them look down with contempt upon their Spiritual duty, and that the two great distance between them, and those they govern will hinder the free and fit recourse of their Inferiors to them; and occasion insolence from them to their inferiors. Let that be considered and cared for, I am sure neither their Lordships, their judging of Tithes, Wills, and Marriages, no, nor their voices in Parliaments are Jure divino; and I am as sure, that these Titles, and this power, are not necessary to their Authority, as appears by the little they have had with us by them, and the much that others have had without them.  
If their revenue shall appear likely to produce the same effects (for it hath been anciently observed, that (Religio peperit divitias, & Filia devoravit matrem;) Let so much of that, as was in all probability, intended for an attendant upon their temporal Dignities, wait upon them out of the doors. Let us only take care to leave them such proportions, as may serve in some good degree to the dignity of Learning, and the encouragement of Students; and let us not invert that of Jeroboam, and as he made the meanest of the people Priests, make the highest of the Priests, the meanest of the people.  
If it be feared, that they will again employ some of our Laws, with a severity beyond the intention of those Laws, against some of their weaker Brethren; that we may be sure to take away that power, let us take away those Laws, and let no Ceremonies which any number counts unlawful, and no man counts necessary (against the Rules of Policy, and S. Paul) be imposed upon them. Let us consider that part of the Rule they have hitherto gone by, that is, such Canons of their own making as are not confirmed by Parliament, have been, or no doubt shortly will be by Parliament taken away, that the other part of the Rule (such Canons as were here received before the Reformation, and not contrary to any Law) is too doubtful to be a fit Rule, exacting an exact knowledge of the Canon Law, of the Common Law, of the Statute Law knowledges, which those who are thus to govern have not, and it is scarce fit they should have. Since therefore we are to make new Rules, and shall no doubt make those new Rules strict Rules; and be infallibly certain of a triennial Parliament, to see those Rules observed as strictly as they are made, and to increase or change them upon all occasions, we shall have no reason to fear any innovation from their tyranny, or to doubt any defect in the discharge of their duty. I am confident, they will not dare either ordain, suspend, silence, excommunicate, or deprive, otherwise than we would have them. And if this be believed, I am as confident, we shall not think it fit to abolish upon a few day's debate, an Order, which hath lasted (as appears by Story) in most Churches these Sixteen hundred years, and in all from Christ to Calvin or in an instant change the whole face of the Church, like the scene of a Mask.  
Master Speaker, I do not believe them to be Jure Divino, nay I believe them not to be Jure divino; but neither do I believe them to be Injuria humana. I neither consider them as necessary, nor as unlawful, but as convenient or inconvenient. But since all great Mutations in Government are dangerous, (even where what is introduced by that Mutation is such as would have been very profitable upon a primary foundation) and since the greatest danger of Mutations is, that all the dangers and inconveniences they may being, are not to be foreseen, and since no wise man will undergo great danger, but for great necessity; my Opinion is, That we should not root up this Ancient tree, as dead as it appears, till we have tried, whether by this or the like lopping of the branches, the sap which was unable to feed the whole, may not serve to make what is lest both grow and flourish. And certainly, if we may at once take away both the inconveniences of Bishops, and the inconvenience of no Bishops, that is of an almost universal Mutation; this course can only be opposed by those, who love Mutation for mutations sake.  
Master Speaker, To be short (as I have reason to be, after having been so long,) this Trial may be suddenly made, let us commit as much of the Ministers Remonstrance, as we have read, that those Heads both of Abuses and Grievances which are there fully collected, may be marshaled and ordered for our debate; If upon that Debate it shall appear, that those may be taken away, and yet the Order stand; we shall not need to commit the London Petition at all, for the cause of it will be ended: if it shall appear, that the abolition of one cannot be, but by the destruction of the other, then let us not commit the Lond. Pet. but grant it.  
FINIS.   

A SPEECH made in the HOUSE of COMMONS; Anno 1641.  
Mr. Speaker,  
NOw that we are about to brand these Canons in respect of the matter contained in them, it is the proper time to open the foulness thereof: and though much of this hath been anticipated in the general Debate, yet if any thing hath been omitted, or if any thing may be farther cleared in that kind, it is for the Service of the House that it should now be done.  
Sir, I conceive these Canons do contain sundry matters, which are not only contrary to the Laws of this Land, but also destructive of the very principal and fundamental Laws of this Kingdom. I shall begin with the first Canon, wherein the framers of these Canons have assumed unto themselves a Parliamentary power, and that too in a very high Degree, for they have taken upon them to define what is the Power of the King, what the Liberty of the Subjects, and what propriety he hath in his goods. If this be not proper to a Parliament, I know not what is: Nay it is the highest matter that can fall under the consideration of a Parliament, and such a point as wherein they would have walked with more tenderness and circumspiction, than these bold Divines have done. And surely, as this was an act of such Presumption as no Age can parallel, so it is of such dangerous consequence as nothing can be more. For they do not only take upon them to determine matters of this nature, but also under great Penalties forbidden all Parsons, Vicars, Curates, Readers in Divinity, etc. to speak any other ways of them than as they had defined; by which means having seized upon all the Conduits, whereby knowledge is conveyed unto the people, how easy would it be for them in time to undermine the King's Prerogative, and to suppress the Subjects Liberty, or both.  
And now (Sir) I beseech you to consider how they haveed sinned this high and great point: They have dealt with us in matter of Divinity, as the Judges had done before in matter of Law: They first took upon them to determine a matter that belonged not to their Judicature, but only to the Parliament, and after by their judgement they overthrew our propriety; and just so have these Divines dealt with us, they tell us, That Kings are an Ordinance of God, of Divine Right, and founded in the Prime Laws of nature, from whence it will follow, that all other Forms of Government, as Aristocrasies' and Democraties, are wicked Forms of Government contrary to the Ordinance of God, and the Prime Laws of Nature, which is such new Divinity as I never read in any Book, but in this new Book of Canons.  
Mr. Speaker, We all know, That Kings, and States, and Judges, and all Magistrates are the Ordinances of God, but (Sir) give me leave to say, they were the Ordinances of men before they were the Ordinances of God. I know I am upon a great and high point, but I speak by as great and as high a warrant, if Saint Peter's chair cannot err (as Saint Peter's Epistles cannot) thus he teacheth us, Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as supreme, or to the Governor, at to him that is sent by him, etc.  
(Sir) It is worthy noting, that they are Ordinances of men, but that they are to be submitted unto for the Lords sake; and truly their Power is as just, and their Subjects allegiance as due unto them, though we suppose them to be first ordinances of men, and then ednfirmed and establined by God. Ordinance, as if we suppose them to be immediate Ordinances of God, and so received by men. But there was somewhat in it, that these Divines aimed at, I suppose it was this, If Kings were of Divine Right, as the Office of a Pastor in the Church, or founded in the prime Laws of Nature, as the power of a Father in a Family; than it would certainly follow, that they should receive the fashion and manner of their Government only from the Prescript of God's Word, or of the Laws of Nature; and consequently, if there be no Text neither of the Old nor New Testament, nor yet any Law of Nature, that Kings may not make Laws without Parliaments, they may make Laws without Parliaments; and if neither in the Scripture nor in the Law of Nature, Kings be forbidden to lay Taxes or any kind of Impositions upon their people without consent in Parliament, they may do it out of Parliament: and that this was their meaning, they express it after in plain terms, for they say, That Subsidies and Taxes, and all manner of aides are (due unto Kings by the Law of God, and of Nature. (Sir) if they be due by the Law of God and of nature, they are due, though there be no Act of Parliament for them, nay (Sir) if they be due by such a right, a hundred Acts of Parliament cannot take them away, or make them undue. And (Sir) that they meant it of Subsidies and Aids taken, without consent in Parliament, is clearly that addition that they subjoin unto it, that this doth not take away from the Subject the propriety he hath in his goods, for had they spoken of Subsidies and Aids given by consent in Parliament, this would have been a very ridiculous addition; for, Who ever made any question, whether the giving Subsidies in Parliament did take away from the Subject the Propriety he hath in his Goods, whenas it doth evidently imply, they have a propriety in their goods? for they could not give, unless they had something to give: But because that was alleged as a chief Reason against ship-money, and other such illegal Payments levied upon the people, without their consent in Parliament, that it did deprive them ●f their right of propriety which they have in their goods; These Divines would seem to make some Answer thereunto, but in truth their Answer is nothing else but the bare assertion of a Contradiction, and it is an easy thing to say a contradiction, but impossible to reconcile it; for certainly if it be a true Rule (as it is most tru●) Quo meum est, sine consensu meo non potest sieri alienum; To take my goods without my consent must needs destroy my propriety. Another thing in this first Canon, wherein they have assumed unto themselves a Parliamentary Power, is in that they take upon them to define what is Treason, beside what is determined in the Statute of Treasons They say, To set up any coactive Independent Power is treasonable both against God and the King, The Question is not whether it be true they say or no, but whether they have power to say what is treason, and what not? But now (Sir) that I am upon this point, I would gladly know what kind of power that is, which is exercised by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacon's, etc. Coactive certainly it is, all the Kingdom feels the lash thereof, and it must needs be Independent, if it be jure Divino, as they hold it, for they do not mean by an Independent power, such a power as doth not depend on God. Besides, if their Power be dependant, of whom is it dependent? not of the King, for the Law acknowledgeth no way whereby Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction can be derived from his Majesty, but by his Commission under the great Seal, which, as I am informed they have not: I speak not of the High Commission, but of that Jurisdiction which they exercise in their Archiepiscopal, Episcopal, Archidiaconal Courts, &c and therefore, if their own Sentence be just, we know what they are, and what they have pronounced against themselves. But (Sir) it were worth knowing what they aimed at in that Independent coactive Power, which they term Popular. I will not take upon me to unfold their meaning; but we know Doct. Beal had a hand in making of these Canons, and if we apply his Paraphrase to the Text, it may give us some clearness. I remember amongst other Notes of his this was one, shalt we did acknowledge the King's Supremacy, but would join unto him an Assistant, (viz.) the People, meaning this House, which being the Representative body of the COMMONS of England, and claiming, as it is so, a share in the Legislative Power, Doctor Beal calleth this, a joining of an Assistant to the King, in whom solely he placeth the Power of making Laws, and that it is but of grace, that he assumeth either the Lords, or Commons for the making of Laws with him. Now (Sir) The Legislative power is the greatest Power, and therefore coactive; and it is the Highest power, and therefore Independent; and if every Estate for the Proportion it hath therein, should not have such a power, it should not have it of right, as founded in the fabric and frame of the policy and Government, but of Grace, or by Commission, as Doctor Beal affirmeth. I have done with the first Canon, only I shall add this, That considering the Principles and Positions that are laid down therein, and comparing them with a clause toward the end of the Canon, that in no case imaginable it is lawful for Subjects to defend themselves, we may judge how fare forth these Canons were to prepare men's minds for the force that was to follow after; if the Accusation against my Lord of Strafford be laid aright. For the matter itself, I hope there will never be any need to dispute that Question, and I do believe they had as little need to have published that position, had it not been upon design. As for the second Canon, therein also they have assumed to themselves a Parliamentary power, in taking upon them to appoint Holidays, whereas the Statute saith in express words, That such days shall be only kept as Holidays, as are named in the Statute, and no other; and therefore, though the thing may be bonum, yet it was not done benè, because not ordained by Parliament, notwithstanding what hath been alleged to the contrary: It seemeth to me to be the appointing of an Holiday, to set a time apart for Divine Service, and to force men under penalties to leave their labours, and business, and to be present at it. And of the same nature is that other clause, in the same Canon, wherein they take upon them without Parliament, to lay a charge upon the People, enjoining two Books at least for that day, to be bought at the charge of the Parish, for by the same right, that they may lay a penny on the Parish without Parliament, they may lay a pound, or any greater Sum.  
As to the Third Canon, I shall pass it over, only the Observation that my neighbour of the long Robe made upon it, seems unto me so good, as that it is worth the repeating, That whereas in the Canon against Sectaries, there is an especial Proviso, that it shall not derogate from any Statute, or Law made against them, (as if their Canons had any power to disannul an Act of Parliament,) There is no such Proviso in this Canon against Papists, from whence it may be probably conjectured, that they might have drawn some colour of exemption, from the penal Laws established against them from this Canon, because it might seem hard that they should be doubly punished for the same thing, as we know in the point of absence from the Church; the Law provideth, that if any man be first punished by the Ordinary, he shall not be punished again by the Justices.  
For the Fourth Canon against Socinianism, therein also these Canon makers have assumed to themselves, a Parliamentary power, in determining an Heresy not determined by Law, which is expressly reserved to the determination of a Parliament. It is true, they say it is a complication of many heresies condemned in the four first Counsels, but they do not say what those Heresies are, and it is not possible that Socinianism should be formally condemned in those Counsels, for it is sprung up but of late, therefore they have taken upon them to determine and damn a Heresy, and that so generally, as that it may be of very dangerous consequence, for condemning Socinianism for an Heresy, and not declaring what is Socinianism, it is left in their breasts whom they will judge, and call a Socinian. I would not have any thing that I have said to be interpreted, as if I had spoken it in favour of Socinianism, which (if it be such as I apprehend it to be) is indeed a most vile and damnable Heresy, and therefore the framers of these Canons are the more to blame in the next Canon against Sectaries, wherein, besides that in the preamble thereof, they lay it down for a certain ground, which the Holy Synod knew full well, that other Sects (which they extend not only to Brownists and Separatists, but also to all persons that for the space of a month do absent themselves, without a reasonable cause, from their own Parish Churches,) do equally endeavour the subversion of the Discipline, and Doctrine of the Church of England with the Papists, although the worst of them do not bear any proportion in that respect to the Papists; I say, besides that they make them equal in crime, and punishment, to the Papists, notwithstanding the great disproportion of their Tenants, there is another passage in this Canon relative, to that against Socinianism, which I shall especially offer to your consideration, and that is this, If a Gentleman coming from beyond Seas should happen to bring over with him a Book, contrary to the Discipline of the Church of England, or should give such a Book to his friend, nay, if a man shall but abett, or maintain an Opinion contrary thereunto, though it were but in Parliament, if he thought it fit to be altered, by this Canon he is excommunicate, ipso facto, and lieth under the same consideration, and is liable to the same punishment; as if he had maintained an Opinion against the Deity of CHRIST, and of the Holy Ghost, and of our Justification by the satisfaction of Christ.  
(Sir) If in these things that are in their own nature indifferent, if in things disputable, it shall be as heinous to abett or maintain an Opinion, as in the most horrible and monstrous Heresies that can be imagined, What Liberty is left to us as Christians? What Liberty is left to us as men?  
I proceed to the sixth Canon, wherein these Canonists have assumed to themselves a Parliamentary Power, and that in a very high Degree, in that they have tak●n upon them to impose new Oaths upon the King's Subjects. (Sir) under favour of what hath been alleged to the contrary, To impose an Oath, if it be not an higher power then to make a Law, it is a power of making a Law of a most high nature, and of higher and farther consequence than any other Law, and I should much rather choose that the Convocation should have a power to make Laws, to bind my person, and my Estate, than that they should have a power to make Oaths to bind my conscience: A Law binds me no longer than till another Law be made to alter it, but my Oath binds me as long as I live. Again, A Law binds me either to obedience, or to undergo the penalty inflicted by the Law, but my Oath binds me absolutely to obedience. And Lastly, A Law binds me no longer than I am in the Land, or at the farthest, no longer than I am a member of the State, wherein, and whereby the Law is made, but my Oath once being taken doth bind me in all places, and in all conditions, so long as I live. Thus much I though good to speak concerning the power of imposing new Oaths: as to the matter of this new Oath, it is wholly illegal. It is against the Law of this Land, it is against the Law and Light of Nature, it is against the Law of GOD, it is against the Laws of this KINGDOM; and that, no obscure Laws, nor concerning any mean or petty matters. It is against the Law of the King's Supremacy, in that it maketh Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-Deacons, etc. to be jure Divino, whereas the Law of this Land hath annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, not only all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, but also all Superiority, over the Ecclesiastical STATE, and it is to be derived from him by Commission under the Great Seal, and consequently it is Jure humane. Again, it is against the Oath of Supremacy, established by Law pointblank, for therein I am sworn, not only to consent unto, but also to assist, and to the uttermost of my power, to defend all Jurisdictions, Preeminences, etc. annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, of which this is one (and that which immediately precedeth this Oath in the Statute, and whereunto it doth especially relate) that his Majesty may exercise any Jurisdiction, or Ecclesiastical Government by his Commission under the Great Seal, directed to such persons as he shall think meet; so that, if he shall think other Persons meet, than Arch-Bishops, Bishops, etc. I am sworn in the Oath of Supremacy, not only to assent thereunto, but to assist, and to the utrermost of my power defend such an appointment of his Majesty, and in this new Oath I shall swear never to consent unto such an alteration. In the like manner it is against the Law, and Light of Nature, that a man should swear to answer, (etc.) to he knows not what. It is against the Law and Light of Nature, that a man should swear never to consent, to alter a thing, that in its own nature is alterable, and may prove inconvenient, and fit to be altered. Lastly, It is against the Law of God: for whereas there are Three Rules prescribed to him that will swear aright, that he swear in Judgement, in Truth, and Righteousness: He that shall take this new Oath, must needs break all these three Rules. He cannot swear in judgement, because this Oath is so full of ambiguities, that he cannot tell what he swears unto; not to speak of the unextricable ambiguity of the etc. there is scarce one word that is not ambiguous in the principal part of the Oath; as first, what is meant by the Church of England? whether all the Christians in England, or whether the Clergy only, or only the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans? etc. or whether the Convocation? or what? In like manner it is as doubtful what is meant by the Discipline, and what by the Doctrine of the Church of England; for what some call Superstitious Innovations, if others affirm to be consonance to the Primitive, and that the purest Reformation in the time of Edward the 6. and in the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth; and so for the Doctrine of the Church of England, if all the Positions that of later years have been challenged by some of our Divines to be Arminian and Popish, and contrary to the Articles of our Religion, and which on the other side have been asserted and maintained as consonant to the Doctrine of our Church, and the Articles of Religion were gathered together, they might make a pretty Volume; nay, Sancta Clara will maintain it in despire of the Puritans, That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, is the Doctrine of the Church of England. Truly it were very fit that we knew, what were the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, before we swear to it; and then (Sir) give me leave to say, that I should be very loath to swear to the Discipline, or to the Doctrine and Tenants of the purest Church in the World, as they are collected by them, farther than they agree with the Holy Scriptures. Lastly, It is as doubtful what is meant by the Doctrine and Discipline established, and what by altering and consenting to alter, whether that is accounted or established, which is established by Act of Parliament, or whether that also that is established, by Canons, Injunctions, etc. and whether it shall not extend to that which is published by our Divines, with the allowance of Authority: and so for consenting to alter, whether it be only meant that a man shall not be active in altering, or whether it extend to any consent, and so that a man shall not submit to it, nor accept of it, being altered by the State. More ambiguities might be shown, but these are enough to make it clear, that he that shall take this Oath cannot swear in judgement. Nor can he swear in truth, for it is full of untruths. It is not true that Discipline is necessary to Salvation It is not true, that Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-Deacons, etc. are Jure Divino, as they must needs be, if the Lawmakers ought of right to establish them, as they are established, for the Lawmakers are not bound as of right, to frame their Laws to any other than the Laws of God alone. Now, whether Bishops be Jure Divino, we know it is a Dispute amongst the Papists, and never did any Protestant hold it till of late years, but that Archbishops, Deans, Arch-Deacons, etc. should be Jure Divino, I do not know, that ever any Christian held it before, and yet he that taketh this Oath must swear it. Lastly, As he that taketh this Oath cannot swear in judgement nor in truth, so neither can he swear in righteousness, for it is full of unrighteousness, being indeed, as hath been well opened, a Covenant in effect against the King and Kingdom; for if the whole STATE should find it necessary, to alter the Government by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, etc. a great part of the Kingdom, especially of the Gentry, (for not only the Clergy, but all that take degrees in the Universities, are bound to take it) will be preingaged not to consent to it, or admit of it. Again, it is a great wrong to those that shall be Parliament men, that their freedom shall be taken away, being bound up by an Oath, not to consent to the altering of a thing, which it may be fit and proper for a Parliament to alter. And suppose that for the present it be no hindrance to the service of God, nor yet burdensome to the King, and Kingdom, yet if it should prove so hereafter, for a man to be bound by an Oath never to consent to alter it, may be a great wrong to God in his service, and to the King and Kingdom in their peace and welfare, and therefore this Oath cannot be taken in righteousness. For the other Oath, de parendo juri Ecclesiae, & stando mandatis Ecclesiae, though it make less noise than the other, yet is it not of least dangerous consequence. If I remember well the Story, this was the Oath that the Pope made King John to take, and when he had sworn stare mandatis Ecclesiae, the Pope commanded him to resign his Kingdom to him; and truly, be he Gentleman or Nobleman, or whatever else, when he hath once put his neck into this noose, his Ghostly Fathers may drag him whither they will, for they have the quantity and the quality of the penance in their own breasts, and if they shall enjoin him to give any Sum towards the building of a Church, or the adorning of a Choppel, he must pay it, or if they should enjoin him any servile or base Action (as there are not wanting Examples of that kind, in the time of Popery) they are sworn stare mandatis Ecclesiae, and so cannot recede, but must perform it: Nay, I dare not warrant any man from the rods of Henry the second, or of Raymond of Tholouze; what hath been done may be done, I am sure the power is the same. And that other Oath also (though more usual in practice, and more confirmed by these new Canons) which is administered to Churchwardens, would be looked into. For it is hardly possible for them that take it not to be forsworn, being they swore to so many particulars, that they cannot mind and to some that they cannot understand; as, how many Churchwardens are there in England, that understand what Socinianism is, in case they be sworn, to present the Offenders against that Canon, which concerns that matter.  
I shall only add a word or two concerning two Canons more, which seem to be Canons of Reformation:  
The First is, concerning Excommunication, to be pronounced only by a Divine, wherein it is alleged for the Framers of these Canons, that if they have not more Law on their sides, yet they may seem to have more reason. For my part, as in all other things, I think they have so mended the matter, that they have made it far worse; for before that which was found fault with was this, That a Lay man did that which the grave Divine should have done, and now the grave Divine must do whatever the Lay man would have done, for the cognoscence of the Cause, and the power of Judicature is wholly in the Lay man, only the grave Divine is to be his servant, to execute his Sentences, and hath such a kind of managing the spiritual sword, allowed only unto him, as the Papists in some cases were wont to afford unto the Civil Magistrate, in respect of the temporal sword; for, as if the Civil sword by an implicit faith had been pinned to the Lawn sleeus, they condemned men of Heresy, and then delivered them over to the Secular Power; but what to do? not to have any cognisance of the cause, nor to exercise any power of judicature but only to be their Executioners, and to burn the Heretic whom they had condemned, and so they judged men excommunicate, and then the Civil Power was to send out Writts, de excommunicato capiendo, against them: But one said well, that the sword, without Cognisance of the cause, and judgement, was like Polyphemus without his eye, it became violence and fury, but being accompanied with the eye of judgement, it is equity and justice: and surely where the Spiritual or Civil Governor is called upon to strike, he must be allowed to see and judge whom, and wherefore he strikes, otherwise he will be able to give but an ill account to God, of the managing of the sword, wherewith he is instructed.  
The other Canon is the Last Canon, against Vexatious Citations, wherein they seem to have some sense of the great grievance that poor people lie under, by occasion of Vexatious Citations, and Molestations in Ecclesiastical Courts, and I verily believe that there is not a greater Oppression in the whole Kingdom upon the poorer sort of people, than that which proceedeth out of these Courts. But now (Sir) Let us see what provision they have made against it by this Canon. They say, because great grievances may fall upon people by citations upon pretence only, of the breach of that law without any presentment, or any other just ground, that no citations grounded only as aforesaid shall issue out, except it be under the hand and Seal of the Chancellor, Commissary, Archdeacon, or other competent Judge, so that, (if there be any sense in these words) though there be no Presentment at all, nor any other just ground, yet a citation may issue out, so it be under the hand and Seal of the Chancellor, Commissary, or other competent Judge, and the party shall not be discharged without paying his Fees, nor have any relief by this Canon. But suppose the Citation be not under the hand and Seal of any Competent Judge, and that there was neither Presentment nor any just grounds for it, shall he then be dismissed without paying any Fees? no, unless first contrary to the Law of Nature, there being no Presentment nor just ground of Accusation against him, he shall by his Oath purge himself of pretended breaches of Law, and then too he shall only have the Fees of the Court remitted, but shall have no satisfaction for his troublesome and chargeable journey, and for the loss of his time, and being drawn away from his Affairs. Nay lest they should seem to have been too liberal of their favour, they add a Proviso in the close of the Canon, that this grace of theirs shall not extend to any grievous crime, as Schism, incontinency, misbehaviour in the Church, or obstinate Inconformity. And what do they call misbehaviour in the Church? It a man do not kneel at the Confession, or have his hat on when the Lessons are reading. In like manner what do they call obstinate inconformity? If a man will not think what they would have him think, If a man will not say what they would have him say, if a man will not swear what they would have him swear, if a man will not read what they would have him read, if a man will not preach what they would have him preach, if a man will not pray what they would have him pray: In short, if a man will not do whatever they would have him do, than he is an inconformist, and after that they have duly admonished him, primò, secundò tertiò, all in one breath, than he is contumacious, than he is an obstinate Inconformist.  
Now (Sir) my humble Motion is, that in consideration of all the Premises, and what besides hath been well laid open by others; we should proceed to damn these Canons, not only as contrary to the Laws of the Land, but also as containing sundry matters, destructive of the right of Parliaments, and of the fundamental and other principal Laws of this Kiagdome, and otherwise of very dangerous consequence.   

A SPEECH in the House of Commons, at a Committee for the Bill against Episcopal-Government, Mr Hid sitting in the Chair. June 11, 1641.  
Mr. Hid,  
THE debate we are now upon is, whether the Government by Archbishops, Bishops, Chancellors, etc. should be taken away out of the Church and Kingdom of England: for the right stating whereof, we must remember the Vote which passed yesterday, not only by this Committee, but the House, which was to this effect: That this Government hath been sound by long experience, to be a great impediment to the perfect Reformation and growth of Religion, and very prejudicial to the civil State.  
So that then the Question will lie thus before us, Whether a Government, which long experience hath set so ill a Character upon, importing danger, not only to our Religion, but the civil State, should be any longer continued amongst us, or be utterly abolished? For my own part, I am of the opinion of those, who conceive that the strength of reason already set down, in the Preamble to this Bill, by yesterday Vote, is a necessary decision of this Question: For one of the main ends for which Church-government is set up, is to advance and further the perfect reformation and growth of Religion; which we have already voted, this Government doth contradict; so that it is destructive to the very end for which it should be, and is most necessary and desirable? in which respect certainly we have cause enough to lay it aside, not only as useless, in that it attains not its end, but as dangerous, in that it destroys and contradicts it.  
In the second place, we have voted it prejudicial to the civil State, as having so powerful and ill an influence upon our Laws, the Prerogative of the King, and Liberties of the Subject, that it is like a spreading leprosy, which leaves nothing untainted and uninfected which it comes near.  
May we not therefore well say of this Government, as our Saviour in the fifth of Matthew speaks of salt (give me leave upon this occasion to make use of Scripture, as well as others have done in this debate) where it is said that salt is good; but if the salt hath lost its savour, wherewith will you season it? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and trodden under foot of men: so Church-government, in the general, is good, and that which is necessary, and which we all desire; but when any particular form of it hath once lost its savour, by being destructive to its own ends, for which it is set up (as by our Vote already pasted we say this hath) then surely, Sir, we have no more to do but to cast it out, and endeavour, the best we can, to provide ourselves a better.  
But to this it hath been said, that the Government now in question, may be so amended and reform, that it needs not be quite pulled down or abolished; because it is conceived, it hath no original sin or evil in it: or if it have, it is said, regeneration will take that away.  
Unto which I answer, I do consent that we should do with this Government as we are done by in regeneration, in which all old things are to pass away, and all things are to become new, and this we must do, if we desire a persect reformation, and growth of our Religion, or good to our civil state. For the whole Fabric of this building is so rotten and corrupt, from the very foundation of it to the top, that if we pull it not down now, it will fall about the cars of all those that endeavour it, within a very few years.  
The universal rottenness or corruption of this government, will most evidently appear by a disquisition into these ensuing particulars.  
First, Let us consider in what soil this root grows: Is it not in the Pope's Paradise? do not one and the same principles and grounds maintain the Papacy or universal Bishop, as do our Diocesan or Metropolitan Bishops? All those authorities which have been brought us out of the Fathers and antiquity, will they not as well, if not better support the Popedom, as the order of our Bishops? So like wise all these arguments for its agreeableness to Monarchy, and cure of Schism, do they not much more strongly hold for the acknowledgement of the Pope, than for our Bishops? and yet have Monarchies been ever a whit the more absolute for the Pope's universal Monarchy? or their Kingdoms less subject to schisms and seditions? whatsoever other Kingdoms have been, I am sure our Histories can tell us, this Kingdom hath not: and therefore we have cast him off long since, as he is forteign, though we have not been without one in our own bowels. For the difference between a Metropolitan, or Diocesan, or universal Bishop, is not of kinds, but of degrees: and a Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop is as ill able to perform the duty of a Pastor to his Diocese or Province, as the universal Bishop is able to do it to the whole world: for the one cannot do but by Deputies, and no more can the other; and therefore since we all confess the grounds upon which the Papacy stands are rotten, how can we deny but these that maintain our Bishops are so too, since they are one and the same.  
In the second place, let us consider by what hand this root of Episcopacy was planted, and how it came into the Church.  
It is no difficult matter to find this out, for is not the very spirit of this order, a spirit of pride, exalting itself in the Temple of God, over all that is called God? First, exalting itself above its fellow-Presbyters, under the form of a Bishop; then over its fellow Bishops, under the title of Archbisnops, and so still mounting over those of its own profession, till it come to be Pope, and then it sticks not to tread upon the necks of Princes, Kings and Emperors, and trample them under its feet. Also thus you may trace it from its first rise, and discern by what spirit this order came into the Church, and by what door, even by the backdoor of pride and ambition, not by Christ Jesus. It is not a plant which Gods right hand hath planted, but is full of rottenness and corruption; that mystery of iniquity which hath wrought thus long, and so fit to be plucked up, and removed out of the way.  
Thirdly, Let us consider the very nature and quality of this tree, or root in its self, whether it be good or corrupt in its own nature; we all know where it is said, A good tree cannot bring forth corrupt fruit, nor a corrupt tree good fruit: Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? By its fruit therefore we shall be sure to know it; and according as the fruits of the Government have been amongst us, either in Church or Common wealth, so let it stand, or fall with us.  

In the Church.  
1. AS itself came in by the back door into the Church, and was brought in by the spirit of Antichrist, so itself hath been the backdoor and inlet of all superstition and corruption into the worship and doctrine of this Church, and the means of hastening us back again to Rome. For proof of this, I appeal to all our knowledges in late years past, the memory whereof is so fresh, I need eater into no particulars.  
A second fruit of this Government in the Church, hath been the displacing of the most godly and Conscientious Ministers; the vexing, punishing, and banishing out of the Kingdom, the most religious of all sorts and conditions, that would not comply with their superstitious inventions and Ceremonies; in one word, the turning the edge and power of their Government against the very life and power of Godliness; and the favour and protect on of it unto, all profane, scandalous and superstitious persons that would uphold their party. Thousands of examples might be given of this, if it were not most notorious.  
A third fruit hath been Schism and Fractions within ourselves, and alienation from all the reformed Churches abroad.  
And lastly, the prodigious monster of the late Canons, whereby they had designed the whole Nation to a perpetual slavery and bond age to themselves, and their superstitious Inventions. These are the fruits of the Government in the Church. Now let us consider these in the Civil State: As, 1. The countenaucing all illegal Projects and proceed, by teaching in their Pulpits the lawfulness of an arbitrary Power. 2. The overthrowing all process at Common Law, that reflected never so little upon their Courts. 3. The kindling a War between these two Nations, and blowing up the flame, as much as in them lay, by their Counsels, Canons and Subsidles they granted to that end. 4. The plots, practices and combinations during this Parliament, in all which they seem to have been interested more or less. Thus have they not contented themselves with encroachments upon our spiritual privileges, but have envied us our civil freedom, desiring to make us grind in their mill, as the Philistims did Samson, and to put out both our eyes. O let us be avenged of these Philistims for our two eyes. If then the tree be to be known by its fruits, I hope you see by this time plainly the nature and quality of this tree.  
In the last place, give me leave for a close of all to present to your consideration the mischiefs, which the continuance of this Government doth threaten us with, if by the wisdom of this Committee they be not prevented. 1. The danger our Religion must ever be in, so long as it is in the hands of such Governors, as can stand firmly in nothing more than its ruin; and whose affinity with the Popish Hieratchy makes them more confident of the Papists, than the Professors of the reformed Religion, for their safety and subsistence. 2. The unhappy condition our civil State is in, whilst the Bishops have vete in the Lord's House, being there as so many obstructions, in our body Politic, to all good and wholesome Laws tending to salvation. 3. The improbability of settling any firm or durable peace, so long as the cause of the war yet continues, and the bellows that blow up this flame. 4. And that which I will assure you goes nearest my heart, is the check which we seem to give to divine Providence, if we do not at this time pull down this Government. For hath not this Parl. been called, continued, preserved and secured by the immediate finger of God, as it were for this work? had we not else been swallowed up in many inevitable dangers, by the practices and designs of these men and their party? hath not God left them to themselves, as well in these things, as in the evil administration of their Government, that he might lay them open unto us, and lead us as it were, by the hand, from the finding them to be the causes of our evil, to discern that their rooting up must be our only cure? Let us not then halt any longer between two opinions, but with one heart and resolution give glory to God, in complying with his providence, and with the good safety and peace of this Church and State, which is by passing this Bill we are now upon.   
FINIS.